Again, I ask, is it your assertion that I should not be allowed to decide whether I want to be artificially sustained if I were brain dead, or that my wife should not be allowed to carry out my wishes?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Man 'Trapped in Coma' for 23 Years Was Awake Whole Time
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
I do think that a person who is declared brain dead by no less than 3 doctors and who is only alive because a machine is breathing for them and their heart keeps getting shocked back into activity is one whom I would allow to pass away.
But to withdraw nutrition and hydration is barbaric. Period. I watched my mother die. We had a long discussion about hydration and nutrition at the end of her life. It was clear when it was the end that her body no longer would take the nutrition and the hydration because it was not being processed by her body. She died on her own from the disease that ravaged her - not from us starving her or withdrawing fluids. I could not live with myself if her last days were spent starving and dying from thirst.
But to withdraw nutrition and hydration is barbaric. Period. I watched my mother die. We had a long discussion about hydration and nutrition at the end of her life. It was clear when it was the end that her body no longer would take the nutrition and the hydration because it was not being processed by her body. She died on her own from the disease that ravaged her - not from us starving her or withdrawing fluids. I could not live with myself if her last days were spent starving and dying from thirst.
NO one should have the right to starve or dehydrate someone to death so yes, it is my assertion that if you are in the care of the medical community that you should be allowed to decide. If you are in your own home, and your wife wants to face Jesus Christ telling Him that she decided to just let you die, that's her choice. But to make doctors do that? I don't think so.
Being barbaric is not in and of itself a litmust test for morally appropriate or inappropriate. Otherwise, we'd be decrying infant male circumcision, which is clearly barbaric, yet we allow it. Refusing dyalisis is barbaric, but patients refuse it all the time. Anyhoo, that's off-topic, but I think you get the point.
The bottom line is, barbaric or not, A person has the right to choose to withhold such treatments. If I'm ever declared brain dead, I don't want to be artificially sustained. Not by a ventilator, not by a feeding tube, no artificial life support. Are you telling me I don't have the right to make that choice?
Of the highest order!
Now that is the million dollar question! If we could figure that one out, we wouldn't have a debate here.
Intentionally withholding food and water for weeks at a time is not the way to treat people. Ever!
I disagree on the right to choose to withhold treatments. Like was stated, 50% of brain function is not brain dead, regardless of what the medical community declares. They also declare a fetus is not a human being, so I don't put much weight behind what they "declare".
Let me ask you this, if you were declared brain dead and wished to die, would your wife be able to put a bullet into your head? Both would kill you.
Last edited by a moderator:
Amen to that!!! If it were easy to discern between "years to one's life" and "life to one's years", this wouldn't be such a hot topic.
That's a simplistic view, but quite inaccurate, and would take a lot more time and space than is here to discuss.
No, there's a huge difference between killing someone, and allowing them to die.
Last edited by a moderator:
I see your point, but let me phrase it a different way. What are God's wishes? Does he want us to try to save a life for as long as possible or let it die? Or, in some cases speed up the death process?
The reason I brought up Terry Schiavo on this thread is because it's quite possible that doctors don't know everything about the brain. Fifty years from now, they might figure out she WASN'T a vegetable. The man in this article was in a coma for YEARS. What if they had given up hope on him? My point is we should preserve God given life as long as possible.
As I said, I watched my mother die of breast cancer. When she died, her body would no longer accept nutrition or hydration - it just shut down. She died within a few hours after that. But not once was any of this withheld - her body denied it because it was time for her to die. A body that still accepts food and water is one which still needs food and water. Plain and simple.
They say starvation and dehydration is a terrible way to die. They cannot communicate with us to tell us how terrible they feel. Why would I want to inflict that pain on someone I know well and love?
They say starvation and dehydration is a terrible way to die. They cannot communicate with us to tell us how terrible they feel. Why would I want to inflict that pain on someone I know well and love?
:thumbs::thumbs:
What you're doing is "personifying". In reality, you're not inflicting any pain, because a brain dead person does not feel anything. They're brain dead. You made a choiuce for your mother's care. That's perfectly fine. If I'm brain dead, I don't want any sustenance. No nutrition or hydration, no ventilator, no nothing. Just let me go. Are you saying I shouldn't be allowed that?
When someone is dead and you pull them off machines it take minutes, when they are like Terri Schivo and you starve them it take weeks. The contrast should be obvious and shocking.
Not true. When one of my family members was pulled from life support following a stroke, we were told, "it would take minutes, hours, days, weeks, sometimes longer". She expired a week later. When we had to do that again year later for another relative, she died in four hours. We had another family member die of cancer, who stopped eating three weeks before he died. Sure, we could have hooked him up to a feeding tube, but it would have been for our benefit, not his.
Last edited by a moderator:
windcatcher
New Member
For clarification, and input on some statements made in this thread.... for the benefit of those who earnestly 'wonder' and don't know who or what to believe...which may 'muddle' the waters for some...... but reassure others in holding their position.
In some ways..... these decisions beg the questions..... who is in the position to sustain life and determine when it should be taken? Is there an element of fear and uncertainty and lack of preparation or fear of uncompleted purpose in our desire to prolong life? Whatever our spiritually connected beliefs or decisions may be..... do these determinations belong within the individual's right to choose for himself or is it really a proper decision to be turned over to another... and most especially to a person totally unacquainted and unconnected to an interest in our welfare?
I can't imagine the fear and frustration this man must have faced though the 23 years of his life with caretakers talking over and around him.... concerning his care.... concerning the attitudes and care of other patients which confused him because they thought it was a 'safe' and 'confidential' environment ..... cause they assumed he couldn't hear, receive, or process information. I'm glad that he's alive and that the staff discovered his awareness to design methods by which he can communicate once more with his world.
A relatively consequence of some strokes or head injury, is a condition called aphasia (sp?). The patient may know what they are trying to say.... but it is like the words (recognized symbols of communication) have gotten scrammbled inside their brain so what they say makes no sense even with what they mean. Dealing with a person, a friend, a family member, or a patient, with this problem is difficult, requires much patience..... and an understanding that their frustration is likely to exhibit in anger or even violence towards their visitors or caregivers...... Word posters and/or picture posters may help them in their therapies to communicate emotions, needs, subjects of interest, etc ..... to others. This is just an FYI for any who have confronted or may in the future confront problems in communications with such persons so impaired.
Agreed. Though most folks consider a feeding tube to require intensive medically trained staff to maintain..... because their only exposure to the use of a feeding tube is in a hospital or nursing home.... it is something which can be done in the home and does not require a lot of training to maintain. It does require someone to be trained in the specific skills of checking to see it is in the stomach and hasn't moved into the airway... a stethascope.... an air syringe,..... a glass of water to check for bubbling. Besides this, the preparation of formula, the patient timing of input so there is no over filling or refluxive action, the flushing with water, the crushing and administration of meds in solution through the tube..... Even the formula itself, can be made fresh and given at home.... provided that medical staff are willing to train home caretakers for this portion of care. If the tube moves out of position, they must be able to assess this and obtain medically trained persons who can reposition and secure the tube. If Terri's parents had been given the opportunity...... and they had no mental deficits or problems in hearing through a stethoscope......they could have kept her fed through a gastric nasal tube.... or a tube surgically placed directly into her stomach.
Indeed! The brain for optimum function needs good nutrition and hydration (water). If deprived of either ..... it may be expected to not function well or at all. Without proper hydration....... that is without giving the person water sufficient to maintian fluid needs for kidney filtration and elimination of toxins.. these will build up and one of the common signs of kidney infection or failure is a change in cognition.....more gradual in the young due to their ability to rebound.... but can be a sudden sign of physical problems in the elderly who were functioning well but have a sudden and unexplained change in behavior or expression of confusion or delusion.
Agreed. While the experts may express a confidence in their assessment techniques and their diagnosis.... even they are fools if they come across as expressing that they know all the answers sufficient to eliminate all other possiblities.
As this happened in another country, it is difficult to know what technology and training was present 23 years ago.... which goes back to 1986. However, here, my brother had an EEG (electro encephlalogram) in 1969 resulting from brain trauma in an auto accident. My baby sister's infant daughter had an EEG in 1980 after a fall caused a seizure... and an improperly placed trache tube deprived her of oxygen..... with brain death declared after 3 days. So EEG's have been around for some time. However, as more studies are done and more experiences such as in this man's, new data is creating the need to reassess the old assumptions and conclude that for as much as is known.... there is much yet to learn. Some experimental medications, on the 'cutting edge', tend to suggest that there are some instances where some coma's may be interrupted. For who, for how long, the risks and the benefits.... these are not answered definitively.
Deprive a person of proper nutrition, place them in sensory deprivation, deprive them of hydration and allow their body to build up toxins..... and you'd get the same results of brain srinkage and lazy or nearly inert activity..... (make that 'inert' activity based upon our own assumptions of functioning level..... or ability to rebound from such assaults).
I think your argument is extremely simplistic considering that 'the spouse' in Shivo's case had already abandoned her care and any life with her by a all but a married relationship with another woman which included bearing children. Under such a case.... the courts should have recognized his abandonement and appointed her care to guardians who truely had a relationship interest and valued her as a person with life.
You're in a position to make that determination now.... without knowing under what circumstances your future or your trust in your spouse may change. However..... a statement made during the process of discussing these happenings, be it on a forum.... or a table conversation with friends ...... does not constitute your definitive decision..... only the processing of your present thoughts and verbal expression. Definitive expression should be given the benefit of the doubt when determining a person's wishes... unless it is put in writing. Unfortunately, once that document exists and can be pulled forward.... should you change your mind at a later date..... even in writing...... you'd be dependant upon the person or persons entrusted with the latest document to pull it forward and present it in a timely fashion before an action was taken.
In some ways..... these decisions beg the questions..... who is in the position to sustain life and determine when it should be taken? Is there an element of fear and uncertainty and lack of preparation or fear of uncompleted purpose in our desire to prolong life? Whatever our spiritually connected beliefs or decisions may be..... do these determinations belong within the individual's right to choose for himself or is it really a proper decision to be turned over to another... and most especially to a person totally unacquainted and unconnected to an interest in our welfare?
I can't imagine the fear and frustration this man must have faced though the 23 years of his life with caretakers talking over and around him.... concerning his care.... concerning the attitudes and care of other patients which confused him because they thought it was a 'safe' and 'confidential' environment ..... cause they assumed he couldn't hear, receive, or process information. I'm glad that he's alive and that the staff discovered his awareness to design methods by which he can communicate once more with his world.
A relatively consequence of some strokes or head injury, is a condition called aphasia (sp?). The patient may know what they are trying to say.... but it is like the words (recognized symbols of communication) have gotten scrammbled inside their brain so what they say makes no sense even with what they mean. Dealing with a person, a friend, a family member, or a patient, with this problem is difficult, requires much patience..... and an understanding that their frustration is likely to exhibit in anger or even violence towards their visitors or caregivers...... Word posters and/or picture posters may help them in their therapies to communicate emotions, needs, subjects of interest, etc ..... to others. This is just an FYI for any who have confronted or may in the future confront problems in communications with such persons so impaired.
You are telling an untruth. Schiavo was NOT EVER declared brain dead.
First, let's clarify what the case is not. Terri Schiavo is not legally brain dead. In the United States brain death means whole brain death, including the death of the brain stem, which controls respiration and circulation. The definition of brain death was codified in 1980 in the Uniform Determination of Death Act, which has been adopted by most states. The UDDA noted that the "concept of 'entire brain' distinguishes determination of death under this Act from 'neocortical death' or 'persistent vegetative state.'" A brain-dead patient will show virtually no electrical activity in any part of his or her brain. The concept of brain death was developed because advances in medical technology allowed physicians to maintain the respiration and circulation in patients who previously would have died from damage to their brains.
http://reason.com/archives/2005/03/22/is-terri-schiavo-minimally-con
You can kill yourself if you wish but there's no reason to tell another person to do that. It's called murder in any other situation, you know.
Which is irrelevant if a person is brain dead.
Schiavo's autopsy didn't show this. It showed that she had been brain dead for a long time. Huge portions of her brain were gone, replaced with fluid. This isnt' what you expect to see in a person who was cognisant until being deprived food and water. It's what you expect to see in the brain of a person who had been brain dead for a prolonged period of time.
I compelty agree that Schiavo's husband was a pig. It was still his legal right, and not her parents' right, to make the decision. The fact that he first entered a "do not recussitate" order in 1993 suports that this wasn't something out of the blue (the nursing home staff talked him out of it). In fact, Michael Schiavo agreed to transfer his authority over the matter to the court, which would appoint a guardian ad litem over Terri. That guardian later determined that Terri would not have wished to continue life-prolonging measures.
Yes, that's true. But I make decisions based on what is, not on what if's. It's my decision, and the decision of my spouse, to make. Doing so is not in any way immoral or unscriptural.
windcatcher
New Member
Excellant point made Bro Curtis. The medulla, brain stem, is responsible for maintaining the automatic functions of heart beat and respiration. God specially designed the heart to receive communication and be regulated by the medulla.... make emotional responses as well.... but the heart is the only organ in the body capable of sustaining its self through its own automatic electrical system. (We truely are so wondrously made. Our creator shows his concern and his wisdom in so many ways!) However, a severing of the nerves (paralysis, accident, etc.) which communicate lung function does not mean the medulla is dead.... It just means the breathing must be artificially sustained. Dependance on a respiration machine doesn't mean brain death either.